However, it's feature-limited. They don't even seem to care about good iCalendar interoperability. Fluffy the Cat seems to have this right. I see this idea becoming dead in the water or not taking off until they get full iCalendar support.
At least CAP made sense. This GroupDAV business is just reinventing the wheel in regards to iCalendar.
"interoperability between iCalendar clients is not ensured"
Statements like that in the draft are terrible! Nobody will want to integrate this with their standards-compliant iCalendar programs. One of my new assignments is to work on collaborative calendaring... it's tempting to call CAP "complete" and expect upgrades and do some implementation as part of my job.
Nobody's telling you to "go hump Linus Torvald's leg elsewhere," they just don't get it. If the reasoning for Linux on Macintosh PPC is philosophical, monetary, or academic, I suppose your detractors could accept that.
But some people say "I just prefer Linux," and that doesn't make too much sense to a good deal of people. OS X has good hardware support, most apps can be ported to it, it has X11, it has a consistent UI, you can turn off Aqua if you want to, and non-technical types use the OS on the desktop too.
Aside from
Costing money
Not wanting to run non-free software
The sport of porting because you can
OS X doesn't run too well on your 200Mhz G3
It's hard for people to understand. They think you're crazy. I don't care why, so don't go attacking me. You support the other people who adhere to the above four reasons. However, other inquiring minds want to know.
It's not unusual because those who care, post. Those that don't care, don't post. And those who are bewilderingly annoyed, will make critical posts.:-) It would be very unscientific to gauge interest based on this article, particularly due to how to measure the population and the section of interest.
I think it's a good idea to maintain a port to PPC for Linux on principle, but in practice, I never plan on using it.
It's just that most people who have used OS X and like it for being a *NIX and ease of use think it's absurd to choose the inconveniences of Linux over OS X. Like the lack of AirPort Express.
If that's what you like, more power to you, but don't expect those who like OS X to care too much.
The Mac Mini's problem is that it can't decode AND push out the video at that resolution because of the processor.
Apple's DVD player has no special advantage at 1080, because it is not ever decoding 1080, it's decoding a DVD, which is 720. So the only reason why they put this in the FAQ is because somebody was comparing HDTV MPEG to DVD MPEG, which is not an equal comparison. EyeTV is HDTV only, so this should have been obvious to the technical user, perhaps not to the unskilled.
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_ey et v500_faq#faq12
The "funky calls" are called optimizations. If you read the second part of their answer (#13) you'll see:
"... and they have various DVD-specific limitations that make them unsuitable for EyeTV."
Which means, even if they were available, they couldn't use them anyway. It's not like these things are hidden in the video cards and are mandated by Apple to be included in the silicon. They're just pieces of software that offload DVD-related tasks to the GPU. They still run in the CPU.
If someone wanting to compete with the Apple DVD decoder on processor requirements, all they would need to do is write similar routines to offload tasks to the GPU. No need to reverse engineer anything, just use the programming interface to the video card.
But you know what, none of that matters to Elgato because like they said: the hidden routines are "unsuitable for EyeTV." So it doesn't matter that Apple's DVD player has lower requirements, because it only plays DVDs and EyeTV does more than that.
1080i (1920x1080) is more than double the pixels of 720p (1280x720). This would naturally require more power out of the processor. In order to make sure there's enough horsepower for recording, viewing, and decoding, I think it's a natural choice to suggest a dual G5 when a 1.25 G4 may be barely adequate.
It's not a some evil conspiracy, really. HDTV just requires more.
I really don't care who is motivated by what in this case, but NTP is nothing but a holding company on some BS patents for stuff that already exists but "with RF" tacked on.
If it means throwing out bogus patents, I'd like to see a good explanation if anybody thinks that's a bad idea.
I would suggest the Formac TVR, it's about $30 less and does analog out. I've looked and there are a bit more complaints about Elgato's quality. I know it doesn't encode directly to MPEG, but when you have a chip do it for you, that sort limits your editing capability.
My suggestion with the sensor was to pick a color that didn't blend in with the surroundings. Aka, don't pick white when you're on the slopes. I don't think the whole display glasses idea is impossible, it's just nobody's working on it real hard. These guys have a 20% transmission, which is about on par with some sunglasses. Dial down the resolution and the colors, and maybe you could make it more compact.
Regardless of my stupid ideas on how to make it more useful, I think if somebody actually tried to make a pair of display glasses that were somewhat comparable to normal glasses, I think people would buy them and push the technology along. Original point being, that would be more exciting than an MP3 player strapped to some sunglasses, especially if they were wireless.:-)
have the glasses pick a good contrasting color based on the current light conditions, turn that color up and down 4 or 8 notches and you have a smooth whatever-scale display. Low bandwidth, but enough to select songs or something. It's possible...
The optics would certainly be more complicated as you noted, which is why a HUD in general would be awesome. Slapping a flash MP3 player into some sunglasses, however, is not. I guess that was my point.
IP4 over IP6 tunnel. Set the IP4 gateways at the border, where the rest of the world is, only route IP6 inside.
easy way to determine what's outbound traffic without having to look at the destination.... that would probably be benificial to the chinese government
The NextGen Nx586 was the first R/CISC CPU, so I wouldn't give Intel all the credit for that accomplishment. AMD bought NextGen and incorporated their stuff into the K6.
Coggeshall seems to put it best by outlining all the new features that Apache 2 offers and then describing how they are mostly useless to people, but in most instances, to himself. Thanks. We all appreciate you determining for everyone else what features we do/do not need.
In my estimation, the PHP guys really don't care, because making PHP build safely for Apache 2 wouldn't give enough of a payoff to make it worth their while, thereby crippling any improvement over the current Apache 1.
I would think that they could at least make the build system for PHP by:
1. Mark all the thread-unsafe libraries and extensions 2. Issue a warning/stop the build if those are compiled against Apache 2
I don't think that would be terribly difficult. So, yeah, I'm going to go with "lazyness" as the answer.
The FCC is forcing HDTV down everyone's throats, so the number of people owning HDTVs (at least in the USA) will increase because of this. So, I don't think it wil be too hard to get them to buy into this crap.
Indeed, if you need more cycles, you will still have to upgrade.
The difference here is that Microsoft makes old PCs obsolete by issuing OS upgrades that make the system run slower. For the Mac, if it can run OS X at a decent speed, you can be assured that future OS upgrades will only make the computer run faster.
Now, with old PCs, you can say "run Linux on them" when they are too decrepit to run Longhorn, but that's kind of annoying to most people, because it changes all the apps on the system.
DBAs and those who actually know how to use all the features in the high-end database exploit the features in the database. PostgreSQL supports the most features of the free DBs and it's pretty fast when you use connection pooling compared to MySQL, so they go with it.
People see this and immediately declare MySQL crap, dredge up all those reasons not to use it, and declare PostgreSQL the winnar! [sic] People love conflict....
So, you can use whatever you want. I'm sure Yahoo! picked MySQL because of fast SELECTs and that's all that is really important to them. I pick PostgreSQL because I don't want to have to convert from MySQL to PostgreSQL because I need some feature.
Slashdot Mirror
However, it's feature-limited. They don't even seem to care about good iCalendar interoperability. Fluffy the Cat seems to have this right. I see this idea becoming dead in the water or not taking off until they get full iCalendar support.
At least CAP made sense. This GroupDAV business is just reinventing the wheel in regards to iCalendar.
"interoperability between iCalendar clients is not ensured"
Statements like that in the draft are terrible! Nobody will want to integrate this with their standards-compliant iCalendar programs. One of my new assignments is to work on collaborative calendaring... it's tempting to call CAP "complete" and expect upgrades and do some implementation as part of my job.
Why don't people finish things that have already been started, such as CAP (Calendar Access Protocol).
But some people say "I just prefer Linux," and that doesn't make too much sense to a good deal of people. OS X has good hardware support, most apps can be ported to it, it has X11, it has a consistent UI, you can turn off Aqua if you want to, and non-technical types use the OS on the desktop too.
Aside from
It's hard for people to understand. They think you're crazy. I don't care why, so don't go attacking me. You support the other people who adhere to the above four reasons. However, other inquiring minds want to know.
That's why they bother you, ok?
It's not unusual because those who care, post. Those that don't care, don't post. And those who are bewilderingly annoyed, will make critical posts. :-) It would be very unscientific to gauge interest based on this article, particularly due to how to measure the population and the section of interest.
I think it's a good idea to maintain a port to PPC for Linux on principle, but in practice, I never plan on using it.
It's just that most people who have used OS X and like it for being a *NIX and ease of use think it's absurd to choose the inconveniences of Linux over OS X. Like the lack of AirPort Express.
If that's what you like, more power to you, but don't expect those who like OS X to care too much.
Is that no finalizing work has been done on CAP (Calendar Access Protocol).
The Mac Mini's problem is that it can't decode AND push out the video at that resolution because of the processor.
y et v500_faq#faq12
Apple's DVD player has no special advantage at 1080, because it is not ever decoding 1080, it's decoding a DVD, which is 720. So the only reason why they put this in the FAQ is because somebody was comparing HDTV MPEG to DVD MPEG, which is not an equal comparison. EyeTV is HDTV only, so this should have been obvious to the technical user, perhaps not to the unskilled.
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_e
The "funky calls" are called optimizations. If you read the second part of their answer (#13) you'll see:
"... and they have various DVD-specific limitations that make them unsuitable for EyeTV."
Which means, even if they were available, they couldn't use them anyway. It's not like these things are hidden in the video cards and are mandated by Apple to be included in the silicon. They're just pieces of software that offload DVD-related tasks to the GPU. They still run in the CPU.
If someone wanting to compete with the Apple DVD decoder on processor requirements, all they would need to do is write similar routines to offload tasks to the GPU. No need to reverse engineer anything, just use the programming interface to the video card.
But you know what, none of that matters to Elgato because like they said: the hidden routines are "unsuitable for EyeTV." So it doesn't matter that Apple's DVD player has lower requirements, because it only plays DVDs and EyeTV does more than that.
1080i (1920x1080) is more than double the pixels of 720p (1280x720). This would naturally require more power out of the processor. In order to make sure there's enough horsepower for recording, viewing, and decoding, I think it's a natural choice to suggest a dual G5 when a 1.25 G4 may be barely adequate.
It's not a some evil conspiracy, really. HDTV just requires more.
I really don't care who is motivated by what in this case, but NTP is nothing but a holding company on some BS patents for stuff that already exists but "with RF" tacked on.
If it means throwing out bogus patents, I'd like to see a good explanation if anybody thinks that's a bad idea.
I would suggest the Formac TVR, it's about $30 less and does analog out. I've looked and there are a bit more complaints about Elgato's quality. I know it doesn't encode directly to MPEG, but when you have a chip do it for you, that sort limits your editing capability.
My suggestion with the sensor was to pick a color that didn't blend in with the surroundings. Aka, don't pick white when you're on the slopes. I don't think the whole display glasses idea is impossible, it's just nobody's working on it real hard. These guys have a 20% transmission, which is about on par with some sunglasses. Dial down the resolution and the colors, and maybe you could make it more compact.
:-)
Regardless of my stupid ideas on how to make it more useful, I think if somebody actually tried to make a pair of display glasses that were somewhat comparable to normal glasses, I think people would buy them and push the technology along. Original point being, that would be more exciting than an MP3 player strapped to some sunglasses, especially if they were wireless.
have the glasses pick a good contrasting color based on the current light conditions, turn that color up and down 4 or 8 notches and you have a smooth whatever-scale display. Low bandwidth, but enough to select songs or something. It's possible...
The optics would certainly be more complicated as you noted, which is why a HUD in general would be awesome. Slapping a flash MP3 player into some sunglasses, however, is not. I guess that was my point.
Call me back when you've got a bluetooth HUD or something. The MP3 player can sit in my pocket.
I'd like my sine wave nice and clean, thank you. I'd also like less EM in the air.
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
IP4 over IP6 tunnel. Set the IP4 gateways at the border, where the rest of the world is, only route IP6 inside.
easy way to determine what's outbound traffic without having to look at the destination.... that would probably be benificial to the chinese government
The NextGen Nx586 was the first R/CISC CPU, so I wouldn't give Intel all the credit for that accomplishment. AMD bought NextGen and incorporated their stuff into the K6.
then the user would have to force the install if the PEAR modules they plan to use are ok.
Binaries... compiled safe only.
Coggeshall seems to put it best by outlining all the new features that Apache 2 offers and then describing how they are mostly useless to people, but in most instances, to himself. Thanks. We all appreciate you determining for everyone else what features we do/do not need.
In my estimation, the PHP guys really don't care, because making PHP build safely for Apache 2 wouldn't give enough of a payoff to make it worth their while, thereby crippling any improvement over the current Apache 1.
I would think that they could at least make the build system for PHP by:
1. Mark all the thread-unsafe libraries and extensions
2. Issue a warning/stop the build if those are compiled against Apache 2
I don't think that would be terribly difficult. So, yeah, I'm going to go with "lazyness" as the answer.
The FCC is forcing HDTV down everyone's throats, so the number of people owning HDTVs (at least in the USA) will increase because of this. So, I don't think it wil be too hard to get them to buy into this crap.
Indeed, if you need more cycles, you will still have to upgrade.
The difference here is that Microsoft makes old PCs obsolete by issuing OS upgrades that make the system run slower. For the Mac, if it can run OS X at a decent speed, you can be assured that future OS upgrades will only make the computer run faster.
Now, with old PCs, you can say "run Linux on them" when they are too decrepit to run Longhorn, but that's kind of annoying to most people, because it changes all the apps on the system.
and they were slow and didn't sell, except in the MP configs, where they were the only option
see: Irongate
Random bugs
Random bugs
iDrive locks guy in car (Thai minister of finance)
You can only get the ADC Student discount if you're OVER 18, otherwise the NDA wouldn't be binding.
If you're under, they just provide the public resources.
It seems to go like this.....
DBAs and those who actually know how to use all the features in the high-end database exploit the features in the database. PostgreSQL supports the most features of the free DBs and it's pretty fast when you use connection pooling compared to MySQL, so they go with it.
People see this and immediately declare MySQL crap, dredge up all those reasons not to use it, and declare PostgreSQL the winnar! [sic] People love conflict....
So, you can use whatever you want. I'm sure Yahoo! picked MySQL because of fast SELECTs and that's all that is really important to them. I pick PostgreSQL because I don't want to have to convert from MySQL to PostgreSQL because I need some feature.